Evaluation of Hung Juries in Bronx County, New York, Los Angeles County, California, Maricopa County, Arizona, and Washington, DC, 2000-2001Hannaford-Agor, Paula L.Hans, Valerie P.Mott, Nicole L.Munsterman, G. Thomascourtsfelony offenseshung juriesjury deliberationsjury instructionsjury selectionmistrialsverdictsICPSR.XVII.ENACJD.VThis study was undertaken for the purpose of providing an
empirical picture of hung juries. Researchers were able to secure the
cooperation of four courts: (1) Bronx County Supreme Court in New
York, (2) Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, (3)
Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona, and (4) District of
Columbia Superior Court in Washington, DC. The four sites were
responsible for distributing and collecting questionnaire packets to
all courtrooms hearing non-capital felony jury cases. Each packet
contained a case data form requesting information about case
characteristics (Part 1) and outcomes (Part 2), as well as survey
questionnaires for the judges (Part 3), attorneys (Part 4), and jurors
(Part 5). The case data form requested type of charge, sentence range,
jury's decision, demographic information about the defendant(s) and
the victim(s), voir dire (jury selection process), trial evidence and
procedures, and jury deliberations. The judge questionnaire probed
for evaluation of the evidence, case complexity, attorney skill,
likelihood that the jury would hang, reaction to the verdict, opinions
regarding the hung jury rate in the jurisdiction, and experience on
the bench. The attorney questionnaire requested information assessing
the voir dire, case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the
evidence, reaction to the verdict, opinions regarding the hung jury
rate in the jurisdiction, and experience in legal practice. If the
jury hung, attorneys also provided their views about why the jury was
unable to reach a verdict. Finally, the juror questionnaire requested
responses regarding case complexity, attorney skill, evaluation of the
evidence, formation of opinions, dynamics of the deliberations
including the first and final votes, juror participation, conflict,
reaction to the verdict, opinions about applicable law, assessment of
criminal justice in the community, and demographic information.2006-03-30survey data, and administrative records data368910.3886/ICPSR03689.v1A court clerk and/or judge completed the survey
information used in Part 1 and collected the administrative records
data used in Part 2. Self-enumerated survey questionnaires were
administered to judges in Part 3, to attorneys in Part 4, and to
jurors in Part 5.ArizonaCaliforniaNew York (state)United StatesWashington, DC2000--2001 ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial
3.0 United States License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/).